Presentation

Transcription

Presentation

2014 International SWAT Conference
Porto de Galinhas - PE
Impacts of using different soil
databases on streamflow simulation
in the Pipiripau river basin
Authors: Leandro de Almeida Salles
Henrique Marinho Leite Chaves
Jorge Enoch Furquim Werneck Lima
Sara Ferrigo
Heloisa do Espirito Santo Carvalho
INTRODUCTION
•Tropical soils have peculiar hydrological caracteristics
For example:
Oxisols  high ammounts of clay  high permeability
INTRODUCTION
•Reduce inputs uncertainties improving the models physical
basis
This is important for:
Cenarious studies
Climate change studies
Studies on unggaged basins
INTRODUCTION
•The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of
the soil database on streamflow simulation using SWAT
model in a predominantly agricultural river basin.
STUDY AREA
Pipiripau river basin
•An experimental rural catchment of the Brazilian savanna
(Cerrado biome)
•90% in the northeast of the Federal District
•It’s upper part is in the State of Goias
•235km² drainage area
•The climate is typical for the Brazilian Central Plateau
region
rainy season from October to April
dry weather from May to September
STUDY AREA
STUDY AREA
STUDY AREA
STUDY AREA
But first....
STUDY AREA
But first....
BRASILIA!!
STUDY AREA
But first....
BRASILIA!!
Brazil’s Capital
STUDY AREA
But first....
BRASILIA!!
Brazil’s Capital
STUDY AREA
Brasilia
3 Power Square
Alvorada’s Palace
STUDY AREA
Brasilia
3 Power Square
The supreme court
STUDY AREA
Brasilia
3 Power Square
National congress
STUDY AREA
Now ,back to...
Pipiripau’s river
basin
STUDY AREA
Concerning to
the main watersheds
STUDY AREA
Concerning to
the main watersheds
STUDY AREA
Concerning to
the main watersheds
Pipiripau’s river basin is in
the Parana’s watersheds
STUDY AREA
Digital elevation model
 5m hight distance contour lines
STUDY AREA
Soil map
0.45
5.75
7.54
Oxisols (Red latosols)
11.73
Oxisols (Red and yellow latosols)
Cambisols
Quartzarenic Neosols
59.35
15.18
Gleisols
Plinthosols
STUDY AREA
Land use (2010)
1.50
1.20
0.60
0.50
0.30
0.10
Large-scale cropping
1.60
Pasture
3.50
Cerrado (savanna)
4.20
Semi-natural vegetation (capoeira)
4.50
Irrigated agriculture
43.20
6.60
Riparian vegetation
Native pasture
Low density residential area
Unpaved roads
10.70
Urban area
Silviculture
Bare soil
21.50
Paved roads
Water
MODEL SETUP AND EVALUATION
•2 soil database were tested in order to analyze the
influence of the soil database on streamflow simulation
with SWAT model in Pipiripau’s river basin
SDB1: Lima et al. (2013)
SDB2: Baldissera (2005)
•The evaluation was performed using a 10 years record of
streamflow historical data (1989-1998)
•Monthly and daily basis
•The analysis was made without calibration using only
SWATs first simulation.
•Accuracy quantification and the criteria used for
evaluation of SWAT’s streamflow simulation were made by
ASCE (1993) and Moriasi et al. (2007) methods.
• Visual analysis and statistical evaluation
 Hydroghps
Percent bias (PBIAS)
Nash and Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE)
Adapted Nash and Sutcliffe Efficiency (ANSE)
•General performance ratings for recommended statistics
Performance rating NSE
ANSE
PBIAS (%)
Very good
0,75<NSE≤ 1,00
0,75<ANSE≤ 1,00
PBIAS< ± 10
Good
0,65 <NSE≤ 0,75
0,65< ANSE ≤0,75
±1 ≤ PBIAS≤ ±15
Satisfactory
0,50<NSE≤ 0,60
0,50< ANSE ≤ 0,60
±15≤ PBIAS ≤±25
Unsatisfactory
NSE≤ 0,50
ANSE ≤ 0,50
PBIAS ≥ ±25
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
•Visual comparison between observed streamflow data and
monthly streamflow simulation, using SDB1 and SDB2
25
Streamflow (m³.s-1)
SDB1
20
SDB2
15
Qobs
10
5
0
9/1/1989
3/1/1991
9/1/1992
3/1/1994
Month
9/1/1995
3/1/1997
9/1/1998
•Visual comparison between observed streamflow data and
daily streamflow simulation, using SDB1 and SDB2
Sample of the results
140
Streamflow (m³.s-1)
120
100
80
SDB1
60
SDB2
Qobs
40
20
0
8/1/1989
12/1/1989
4/1/1990
8/1/1990
Day
12/1/1990
4/1/1991
Average monthly basin values
35
Surface runoff (mm)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SDB1
SBD2
40
35
Lateral Flow (mm)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
SDB1
SBD2
120
Evapotranspiration (mm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
SDB1
SBD2
160
140
Water Yield (mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
SDB1
SBD2
Annual water budget results for SB1 and SB2 and for
the Capetinga (DF) and for the Alto Jardim (DF) river basin
Lima (2000);
Reference
Silva & Oliveira (1999)
Lima et al. (2001)
Lima (2010)
This Study: SDB1
This Study: SDB2
1996/1997
1998/1999
2007/2008
1989/1999
1989/1999
River basin
Capetinga (DF)
Capetinga (DF)
Alto Jardim (DF)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Area (km²)
10.00
10.00
104.86
235.00
235.00
Period
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
Precipitation
Surface
Runoff
1744
100.0
1058.73
100.0
1100
100.0
1373.1
100.0
1373.1
100.0
52.5
3.01
15.08
1.42
32.33
2.94
157.59
11.48
157.4
11.46
Base Flow
444
25.46
284.39
26.86
289.89
26.35
348.64
25.39
581.93
42.38
Total Flow
Evapotrans
piration
496.5
28.47
299.47
28.29
322.22
29.29
506.23
36.87
739.33
53.84
1247.5
71.53
831.03
78.49
777.78
70.71
817.6
59.54
563.3
41.02
Variable
Lima (2000);
Reference
Lima et al. (2001)
Lima (2010)
This Study: SDB1
This Study: SDB2
1996/1997
1998/1999
2007/2008
1989/1999
1989/1999
River basin
Capetinga (DF)
Capetinga (DF)
Alto Jardim (DF)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Area (km²)
10.00
10.00
104.86
235.00
235.00
Period
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
Precipitation
Surface
Runoff
1744
100.0
1058.73
100.0
1100
100.0
1373.1
100.0
1373.1
100.0
52.5
3.01
15.08
1.42
32.33
2.94
157.59
11.48
157.4
11.46
Base Flow
444
25.46
284.39
26.86
289.89
26.35
348.64
25.39
581.93
42.38
Total Flow
Evapotrans
piration
496.5
28.47
299.47
28.29
322.22
29.29
506.23
36.87
739.33
53.84
1247.5
71.53
831.03
78.49
777.78
70.71
817.6
59.54
563.3
41.02
Variable
Lima (2000);
Reference
Lima et al. (2001)
Lima (2010)
This Study: SDB1
This Study: SDB2
1996/1997
1998/1999
2007/2008
1989/1999
1989/1999
River basin
Capetinga (DF)
Capetinga (DF)
Alto Jardim (DF)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Area (km²)
10.00
10.00
104.86
235.00
235.00
Period
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
Precipitation
Surface
Runoff
1744
100.0
1058.73
100.0
1100
100.0
1373.1
100.0
1373.1
100.0
52.5
3.01
15.08
1.42
32.33
2.94
157.59
11.48
157.4
11.46
Base Flow
444
25.46
284.39
26.86
289.89
26.35
348.64
25.39
581.93
42.38
Total Flow
Evapotrans
piration
496.5
28.47
299.47
28.29
322.22
29.29
506.23
36.87
739.33
53.84
1247.5
71.53
831.03
78.49
777.78
70.71
817.6
59.54
563.3
41.02
Variable
Lima (2000);
Reference
Lima et al. (2001)
Lima (2010)
This Study: SDB1
This Study: SDB2
1996/1997
1998/1999
2007/2008
1989/1999
1989/1999
River basin
Capetinga (DF)
Capetinga (DF)
Alto Jardim (DF)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Pipiripau (DF/GO)
Area (km²)
10.00
10.00
104.86
235.00
235.00
Period
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
mm*year-1
%
Precipitation
Surface
Runoff
1744
100.0
1058.73
100.0
1100
100.0
1373.1
100.0
1373.1
100.0
52.5
3.01
15.08
1.42
32.33
2.94
157.59
11.48
157.4
11.46
Base Flow
444
25.46
284.39
26.86
289.89
26.35
348.64
25.39
581.93
42.38
Total Flow
Evapotrans
piration
496.5
28.47
299.47
28.29
322.22
29.29
506.23
36.87
739.33
53.84
1247.5
71.53
831.03
78.49
777.78
70.71
817.6
59.54
563.3
41.02
Variable
Evaluation criteria results for daily and monthly simulation with SDB1 and SDB2.
Evaluation critiria
Daily results
Monthly results
SDB1
SDB2
SDB1
SDB2
PBIAS
-23.15
-84.72
-24.53
-86.49
NSE
-11.88
-9.94
-1.78
-6.51
ANSE
-11.80
-9.88
-2.98
-9.74
Evaluation critiria
Daily results
Monthly results
SDB1
SDB2
SDB1
SDB2
PBIAS
-23.15
-84.72
-24.53
-86.49
NSE
-11.88
-9.94
-1.78
-6.51
ANSE
-11.80
-9.88
-2.98
-9.74
Evaluation critiria
Daily results
Monthly results
SDB1
SDB2
SDB1
SDB2
PBIAS
-23.15
-84.72
-24.53
-86.49
NSE
-11.88
-9.94
-1.78
-6.51
ANSE
-11.80
-9.88
-2.98
-9.74
Evaluation critiria
Daily results
Monthly results
SDB1
SDB2
SDB1
SDB2
PBIAS
-23.15
-84.72
-24.53
-86.49
NSE
-11.88
-9.94
-1.78
-6.51
ANSE
-11.80
-9.88
-2.98
-9.74
CONCLUSION
The study indicates the importance of developing soil
databases for specific regions throughout Brazil and furthermore
research on other parameters in order to improve physical basis
on SWATs simulation.
CONCLUSION
Continue improving SWAT model Physical basis
for the Cerrado region:
Parameters and conceptual model
Cenarious Land use/Climate Change
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Brasilia’s Environmental Agency (IBRAM/DF)
University of Brasilia (UnB)
CNPq – SWAT Cerrado Project (EMBRAPA)
Thank you!!

Presentation

Transcription

Similar documents